Talk:2003 La Paz riots/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 17:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Almost there. Some copy changes and one rewording, plus alt text while you're here. 7-day hold for Krisgabwoosh. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Copy changes

Lead

• However, the legal process has since stalled and as of 2022, the trial has not yet been initiated. — Drop the "and" for a semicolon. This avoids some awkward comma stacking ("..., and, as of 2022, the...".

•  Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Background

• There should be a currency link at Bs430, the first appearance of the boliviano abbreviation.

•  Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Further, the project proposed a 10% reduction in the bureaucratic expenses of the State; the central government, legislature, and judiciary. Change semicolon to colon

•  Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Black February

• The People's General Staff—a consortium of social organizations opposed to the government of which Morales held membership—announced mobilizations in Cochabamba against the tax. As did the Bolivian Workers' Center (COB), which broke off social security negotiations it was carrying out with the government, declaring a twenty-four-hour general strike. "As did" does not start a complete sentence. However, the combined sentence would be too long. Change the second sentence to The Bolivian Workers' Center (COB) broke off social security negotiations it had been carrying out with the government, declaring a twenty-four-hour general strike.

•  Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Some officers positioned themselves on the roof the GES missing "of"

•  Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a citation invoke for the sentence with the "couldn't even afford to pay for the cigars he smoked" quote. What a rejection!

• Citation is (Mesa, p. 60) which is the same as the following sentence. Typically I lean towards not having the same citation twice in a row, but if you believe the quote necessitates a more adjacent reference, I'll go ahead and do that. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• catastrophe across country missing "the"

•  Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• A total of seven buildings were set on fire which, given the absence of firefighters, continued to smolder into the night. Comma needed after "fire"; see User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences. This dependent clause is long enough and has its own appositive.

•  Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Sometime after noon, Ronald Collanqui, a twenty-eight-year-old handyman Write "28" as a number. There's also a similar item with "24" next sentence and one earlier that should be "17" instead of "seventeen".

•  Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Aftermath

• much more difficult than the IMF is willing or able to admit". MOS:INOROUT: since this is quoting a complete sentence, the quote goes inside.

• I assume you meant to say the punctuation mark? If so,  Done. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• The OAS attributed blame for the unrest on the PN attributed *to*, not on

•  Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Source spot checks

• 5: Same source as...
• 10 (BBC Mundo): Backs up all of the claims made for it including the Morales quote.
• 13 (Shultz and Whitesell): Checks out all of the claims. See the note below.
• 27 (Río Negro): Backs up claims about no thoughts of resignation and return of 22,000 police officers.
• 30 (Río Negro): Quotes about the IMF's role check out
• 33 (OAS Sec. 3): Fits with the description of the OAS report.

Other

• Earwig finds mostly the Shultz/Whitesell source. Mostly the formulations are unavoidable, though maybe not "that the Bolivian government had been in full agreement with the"... consider rewording.

• Reformulated to: "Following the events of February, the IMF stood its ground on the claim that the Bolivian government had fully agreed with the 5.5% target." Perhaps that is still too close, however. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Web references are archived.
• The article contains two images: a headshot of David Vargas that was apparently uploaded CC-BY by the legislature, and a non-free photo with a valid rationale of the vice president's building burning. I agree with the rationale and the use of the photo.
• The two images need alt text. {{Infobox civil conflict}} has an |alt= parameter but did not advertise this. I have tweaked the TemplateData for that infobox.

• Added alt text. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• The article is written neutrally.

Question

• Per MOS:PERCENT, typically only technical articles should use the (%) symbol, while normal articles should use "percent". I used (%) but remain unsure whether this article would be considered sufficiently technical to merit it. What are your thoughts?

• I thought of that too, but that is a very technical-reading economics section, and I would support it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Very well. Thanks for the thorough review! The effort is appreciated. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.